If there are a lot of conspiracies, is the true purpose of bitcoin a mere conspiracy? and what is the current state of bitcoin due to the conspiracy? wait, it's not natural that bitcoin has a very long correction, is this also a conspiracy

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off , for them to have full control over their own shitcoin.

They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted. <Divide and conquer and also spreading FUD and confusion to break up the competition>

I can see Assassin's Creed game in 2025 coming up with a conspiracy theory of what happened somewhere in 2017-2019 with Bitcoin! Maybe a Piece of Eden controls the price! Well... that's something only Assassin's Creed fans will understand!

Jokes aside, I'm sure there are two possible cases,1) Bitcoin is underestimated as a fools' game and is ignored by "them".2) Bitcoin was seen as a threat in 2017 and big amounts were bought from "them" in order to be able to later on control the price.

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off , for them to have full control over their own shitcoin.

I believe they forked off because they really thought that a large part of the community will follow them. Bitmain would never risk selling Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash if they didn't, and it cost them a lot in my opinion.

Quote

They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted. <Divide and conquer and also spreading FUD and confusion to break up the competition>

There was Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited before that. It was a socio-political attack that failed.

"Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of non-political digital currencies. His career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. He was an Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation until December 2014. Matonis also provides e-money consulting services to companies on alternative currency programs, Bitcoin processing, compliance, jurisdiction selection, monetisation strategies, risk management, and virtual currency platforms."

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.

So I guess you have already mentioned the "wrong people". Well I think there's actually no wrong or right there. If a bigger community wants to reach a consensus on something there must be compromises on every front or else there'll be situations like the BTC/BCH hard fork which causes lots of hate, grudge and stalemate situations. But of course humans are difficult animals and this kind of compromising consensus is hard to achieve so then comes the beauty of this FREE SOURCE stuff - everyone can do/fork their own thing and "nature" tests it if it's fit enough to survive in the long run.

So back to blocks .. I'd watch the whole picture, iterate and maybe go to the golden middle road. Regarding block size maybe there could be a solution somewhere in the middle? Perhaps something like dynamic block size which automatically increases the block size when the current one is say about 80-90% full and vice versa when blocks get empy it decreases the block size accordingly. For example 1MB gets 90% full then it's increased to 2MB and when 2MB is 90% full it's increased to 4MB etc. and when the traffic slows down and blocks get empty the code decreases the blocks first to 2MB and finally back to 1MB if it's possible. This way the code decides and people don't have to argue about it and developers could concentrate on BTCs privacy/anonymity "flaw". Dynamic block size offers small blocks as the optimum solution and also bigger blocks when needed. Bigger blocks are needed especially during the "rush hour" like late 2017 and early 2018.

But this thread is also about consipracy theory regarding bitcoin and I have something to add in my next post.